|
Post by Don on Feb 25, 2017 19:39:28 GMT -5
Nice argumentum ad passiones there, ohio. I'm just not sure how a list of people killed is a refutation of the argument that what matters is A) caliber and B) magazine capacity. I've been arguing that while part of the Maryland restrictions may have an impact (magazine capacity), that the lawmakers have been silly to base the rest of the restrictions on cosmetics rather than the issue of utmost importance (caliber), all in the service of political theater. If your real concern is all those people killed, you should be saying "let's address caliber instead of scary features" by now. Defending the silliness of laws that won't achieve your objective is probably a counter-productive strategy. Of course, that often happens when one defines one's stance by politics instead of science. A partisan rant defending stupid laws passed by stupid people is not the way to move society forward. Tackling problems based on actual science is. So... are you/would you be okay with some/some more goverment restrictions on firearms - as long as they are specifically in regard to more lethal calibers, magazine capacities, etc., i.e., killing power? I said that if politicians are serious about gun control, they should be addressing two issues: A) caliber and B) magazine capacity. I said that making it about scary accessories instead is silly. I didn't offer any opinion as to whether additional restrictions would be a good idea or not. I'm trying to address the facts of the issue, not the politics.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 25, 2017 19:54:08 GMT -5
Well, you mentioned "moving society forward" and "tackling problems" in response to a post referencing the Sandy Hook massacre.
Silly of me to think you were making a scientific point in regard to reducing mass shootings.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 26, 2017 6:07:26 GMT -5
Well, you mentioned "moving society forward" and "tackling problems" in response to a post referencing the Sandy Hook massacre. Silly of me to think you were making a scientific point in regard to reducing mass shootings. That's exactly what I've been doing. Making a scientific point in regard to reducing mass shootings. Or actually, the damage that might be caused in a mass shooting. I've been pointing out, repeatedly, that the damage done in mass shootings has two major contributing factors: A) caliber and B) magazine capacity. If you believe that guns are the major problem in mass shootings, then any laws you create must address either/or A) caliber or B) magazine capacity. Laws that address neither A) nor B) are likely to have little to no impact on the damage that might be caused in a mass shooting. Thus my conclusion that bans on "black scary rifles" when the caliber of those rifles is not being addressed is pure political theatre, intended to mollify those who understand very little about the physics of projectile weaponry, but call on their leaders to "do something," even if that "something" proves to be scientifically illogical. It's just another form of science denialism. People who believe guns are the problem should be holding their representatives feet to the fire over the caliber issue, not wasting their efforts defending cosmetic measures that will accomplish absolutely nothing but make "black scary rifles" seem cooler in popular culture. (As was shown from the 10 years data the last time this silly measure was undertaken nationally) Partisanship has destroyed people's ability to make rational judgments and then to call out the players on their own team when they make irrational decisions.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 26, 2017 7:08:33 GMT -5
I understood your argument about cosmetics back when you made it on page 1.
But you are, in effect, arguing for using a scientific approach to reducing mass shootings, by focusing on caliber and magazine capacity. If you don't actually think this would reduce mass shootings, then you're being disingenuous, imo. "If you believe that guns are the major problem" tells me you don't, and you are. So, if government started using your scientific approach, you'd call it unscientific because "guns aren't the problem" or something. Whatever.
At any rate, I hope government begins to focus on caliber and magazine capacity. Which they very well could, eventually. Maybe after a few dozen more piles of dead bodies.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 26, 2017 8:49:26 GMT -5
Everybody's a partisan here, Don, and you're as partisan as anybody else, so get off your high horse. I gave you science. The science of what happens to the human body is struck by a bullet from an assault weapon. If you don't care for that science, that's hardly my problem. No, you didn't talk about science. You were making specious arguments about bullet calibers that ignored actual facts, and when Don corrected you, you provided a list of people killed by guns and went into moral outrage mode - "How dare you talk about bullet calibers when all these people are dead?" If your actual argument is "Dead people, therefore guns bad," then bullet calibers don't matter, do they? If you are actually arguing that some bullet calibers are worse than others and that's why banning certain types of guns makes sense, then what is the relevance of throwing up a list of dead people? As for the bullet calibers, that silly video you posted compared 5.56mm/.223 rounds (those fired by AR-15s/M16s) and 9mm rounds (those fired by Don's ugly Glocks ) by way of saying "Look how unspeakably horrible 'assault weapons' are!" But of course, as Don tried to point out, there are non-assault weapon hunting rifles that fire much more powerful rounds that would do even more damage to the human body (and deer). There are also handguns (such as .45s - my preferred type) that fire much bigger rounds. If you want to argue bullets, then use facts. If you don't actually care about bullets (you don't) and are simply posting things that make certain types of bullets seem particularly horrific because what you care about is dead bodies and that to you justifies any sort of gun ban that can be finagled, then be honest about the argument you are actually making and don't talk about things you don't actually understand.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 26, 2017 15:39:31 GMT -5
Everybody's a partisan here, Don, and you're as partisan as anybody else, so get off your high horse. I gave you science. The science of what happens to the human body is struck by a bullet from an assault weapon. If you don't care for that science, that's hardly my problem. No, you didn't talk about science. You were making specious arguments about bullet calibers that ignored actual facts, and when Don corrected you, you provided a list of people killed by guns and went into moral outrage mode - "How dare you talk about bullet calibers when all these people are dead?" If your actual argument is "Dead people, therefore guns bad," then bullet calibers don't matter, do they? If you are actually arguing that some bullet calibers are worse than others and that's why banning certain types of guns makes sense, then what is the relevance of throwing up a list of dead people? As for the bullet calibers, that silly video you posted compared 5.56mm/.223 rounds (those fired by AR-15s/M16s) and 9mm rounds (those fired by Don's ugly Glocks ) by way of saying "Look how unspeakably horrible 'assault weapons' are!" But of course, as Don tried to point out, there are non-assault weapon hunting rifles that fire much more powerful rounds that would do even more damage to the human body (and deer). There are also handguns (such as .45s - my preferred type) that fire much bigger rounds. If you want to argue bullets, then use facts. If you don't actually care about bullets (you don't) and are simply posting things that make certain types of bullets seem particularly horrific because what you care about is dead bodies and that to you justifies any sort of gun ban that can be finagled, then be honest about the argument you are actually making and don't talk about things you don't actually understand. I understand you just fine Amadan. If you want to hold hands and jump off the cliff with someone who puts greater value on assault weapons than human lives, you go right ahead and enjoy the ride. I'll wave "bye-bye" as you go down. I tend to ignore any and all advice from a guy who purposefully trolls this board trying to police my posts and thinks he's remotely qualified to tell me what and how to post. The day when I take you seriously Amadan will be my last goddamn day on this board.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 26, 2017 20:49:28 GMT -5
I understand you just fine Amadan. If you want to hold hands and jump off the cliff with someone who puts greater value on assault weapons than human lives, you go right ahead and enjoy the ride. I'll wave "bye-bye" as you go down. Another statement full of colorful rhetoric that avoids addressing anything anyone has actually said. If you understand the arguments made, then you know that claiming that someone "puts greater value on assault weapons than human lives" is a histrionic assertion meant to provoke emotion, not a position. I frankly doubt that you really, truly believe that Don (or I) "puts greater value on assault weapons than human lives." You may believe we're factually wrong in the distinctions we are making about the definition of assault weapons, you may believe we're completely wrong-headed in our legal/philosophical objections to a ban on assault weapons, but "You don't care about this list of victims I just posted!" is not an argument, it's a dishonest attempt to spiral the thread into talking points and flames rather than actual discussion. We know it, you know it, we know that you know it, you know that we know that you know it. If you really believe I am trolling the board, then you should have a talk with the mods about me. Seriously. I am not being snarky or sarcastic. If you really, truly believe that my purpose here is to troll the board and "police your posts" then I'm a negative presence who is trying to damage conversation here, and if you actually care about this forum, you should want me gone. I think you know that is untrue, which is why you'll keep making the accusation without actually substantiating it or trying to do anything about it. Calling me a "troll" is the strongest allowable insult you can use which is why you keep using it, but you don't actually believe it because you know I am, in fact, stating things I believe to be true, and which are my actual beliefs, and that I am engaging with people in good faith, however much you may dislike the nature of (or fact of) my engagement, and that you are no more an object of interest to me than anyone else. Also, the idea that I'm here to police you is particularly laughable since I was here before you. I didn't join this board because I thought "Cool, ohio49er is going to show up and then I can be all up in his grill - good times!"
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 26, 2017 21:15:33 GMT -5
Ahem. So.... anyone have any ideas on how to reduce mass killings, or other kinds of gun violence?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 26, 2017 21:30:50 GMT -5
Ahem. So.... anyone have any ideas on how to reduce mass killings, or other kinds of gun violence? A few. But mostly they involve crime reduction. Violent crimes in general have been decreasing for quite a few years now. "Mass shootings" (a related but not identical phenomenon) is a more difficult problem. Where I differ from Don and other 2nd Amendment absolutists is that I do not think firearms need to be completely unregulated. The exact point at which I am comfortable regulating them... well, that's inevitably going to be something hammered out in compromises that make no one happy. But I do not believe we can successfully profile potential mass murderers to reliably keep them from buying guns, and while we could perhaps ban all weapons capable of conveniently committing mass murder, and that might reduce the number of mass murders (though I'm not convinced on that point), there would be secondary consequences I am opposed to. This has been argued elsewhere in tedious detail and I'm sure we've both gone through several iterations of that discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Feb 26, 2017 21:49:56 GMT -5
So you're saying we could ban all weapons capable of conveniently committing mass murder and that might (?) reduce the number of mass murders. But you're not convinced, plus there would be "secondary consequences" (?) you're opposed to.
A total non-answer.
Some people are so quick to shoot down other people's attempts to reduce the problem of mass shootings and/or gun violence, misguided or not, yet they have no alternative ideas. Nor do they ever express concern over anything other than those partisan!/unscientific!/emotional! attempts.
Sorry, but it's no wonder the casual observer might figure those people prefer dead children over gun bans.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 26, 2017 22:17:43 GMT -5
I understand you just fine Amadan. If you want to hold hands and jump off the cliff with someone who puts greater value on assault weapons than human lives, you go right ahead and enjoy the ride. I'll wave "bye-bye" as you go down. Another statement full of colorful rhetoric that avoids addressing anything anyone has actually said. If you understand the arguments made, then you know that claiming that someone "puts greater value on assault weapons than human lives" is a histrionic assertion meant to provoke emotion, not a position. I frankly doubt that you really, truly believe that Don (or I) "puts greater value on assault weapons than human lives." You may believe we're factually wrong in the distinctions we are making about the definition of assault weapons, you may believe we're completely wrong-headed in our legal/philosophical objections to a ban on assault weapons, but "You don't care about this list of victims I just posted!" is not an argument, it's a dishonest attempt to spiral the thread into talking points and flames rather than actual discussion. We know it, you know it, we know that you know it, you know that we know that you know it.{/quote] It matters less than zero to me what you doubt, Amadan. And everything I say on this board is "dishonest" in your opinion. It always has been and it always will be, but I don't participate here for your validation or agreement. Both are utterly worthless to me. What you call talking points, I call facts. If you don't agree with that, that's your look-out. If you really believe I am trolling the board, then you should have a talk with the mods about me. Seriously. I am not being snarky or sarcastic. If you really, truly believe that my purpose here is to troll the board and "police your posts" then I'm a negative presence who is trying to damage conversation here, and if you actually care about this forum, you should want me gone. What I want is irrelevant. If this were my board, you'd be gone like a bad smell. It's not my board. This is robeiae’s board and as he probably invited you, he’ll have to be the one to disinvite you. Either way, it’s got nothing to do with me. I don’t care if you stay or go, Amadan. I never have. That happens to be demonstrably untrue.
This is where you'll say "that's not trolling." That will also happen to be demonstrably untrue. Being here before me means less than nothing since you had no idea who ohio49er was. Now that you do you're back in your element casting yourself in a role you're totally unqualified for. [/quote]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2017 22:28:28 GMT -5
Actually, I'm the one behind inviting both of you.
That's just how I roll.
,
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 26, 2017 22:35:06 GMT -5
I don't believe you can possibly decrease gun violence by only addressing the first term of the phrase. I'll also note, as did Amadan, that gun violence in general has been in serious decline for several decades now. Given that ongoing decline, one might idly wonder "why now?" as illustrated below. As far as mass shootings go, I think discovering the source of the disease is more important than treating a symptom. But nobody wants to look for institutional causes for the increasing alienation of a small subset of the population. It's much easier to go after guns... and after that, knives, as we're seeing in some other countries.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 26, 2017 23:07:56 GMT -5
Ohio: No, not untrue. You are of no more interest to me than anyone else. If someone else kept engaging in hyperbole and specialized in baiting and asking "When did you stop beating your wife?" type questions, I would engage them in like manner. And no, calling someone out on falsehoods and reality-checking is not trolling.
Don: I don't think "alienation" explains any increased frequency of mass shootings, if there is one. I think you're stretching to fit this into a "Big governments cause all problems" narrative.
Frankly, this is where gun rights advocates do themselves a disservice, by denying that yes, more dangerous rapid-fire weapons mean those disposed to do so can kill more people. Had modern firearms existed in previous centuries, I'm guessing mass murders would have been much more of a thing - there are only so many people the average psychopath can kill with an axe or a musket.
I think our modern society (in large part thanks to the big governments you hate so much) is LESS prone to creating people inhumane or desperate enough to go on killing sprees.
I don't know how we'd measure /test that, though.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 26, 2017 23:29:03 GMT -5
Ohio: No, not untrue. You are of no more interest to me than anyone else. If someone else kept engaging in hyperbole and specialized in baiting and asking "When did you stop beating your wife?" type questions, I would engage them in like manner. And no, calling someone out on falsehoods and reality-checking is not trolling. Actually, that's exactly what it is. Trolling is exactly what you declared you were going to do and have done. And if I may be so immodest, it's as obvious as the nose on your face that you have gone out of your way to troll my posts in a way you have none of the other 20-something members of this board. What you do isn't calling me out on falsehoods. I've presented my supporting documentation on MY posts. You haven't done the same. If you had you'd provide a link, a source, a quote instead of your petty sniping. Which is all you ever do, but while you forget your own bullshit, Amadan, I never have and I'm going to calling out your falsehoods and fact-check your posts when I deem it necessary to do so and can work up the energy to give a shit. Nobody else seems to call you out on the drivel you spit out. If I were doing all the foulness you accuse me of I would think for the smooth functioning of The Colline Gate, the Moderators would already have shown me the door They have their own reasons why they haven't. Yet. Which is also why you're here. Every board has at least one self-appointed Moderator Wannabee patrolling the threads and here that's you. I'm certainly not going to go out my way trolling your posts like some misguided SJW. Which is why I can't take you seriously. I never have.
|
|